Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

WW1


dorgie

Recommended Posts

Only found out fairly recently that my Grandad's dad was a medical orderly in WWI (running around no-man's-land with a stretcher, as far as I can gather—stressederic to thread, please) and got gassed. Suffered the rest of his life with the effects and died during an operation which my Grandad advised him to go for in about 1946 or '47. D'oh.

 

I think that there has been a softening of attitudes towards the idea of recognition/commemoration for these men. Surely it's the least they deserve.

So sort of like a National Day of Commemoration or something?

 

It is the annual poppy-handwringing season, though, which is always great fun.

 

Agreed. It seems that it is only in the last few years that we can actually talk about these brave men without the Republican agenda drowning you out.

:( Think of all the lovely talks we could have had. The b******s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Speaking of poppies, I seem to recall that they used only be worn around the time of Remembrance Day itself but in recent years everyone (well, every TV presenter, public figure and the like) seems to be wearing them for a couple of weeks beforehand. What's that all about does anyone know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so where to start.

 

Maybe an assorted few stories from my research (some from books, some from the Imperial War Museum, some from others).

 

One of the things that I found interesting and a lot of people get drawn into, but also in a weird way find hard to fully grasp, was the actual nature of the combat during the war.

 

The notion that soldiers spent 24 hours a day 7 days a week in the front line constantly being shot at is a fallacy. Soldiers were generally on a sort of 4 week cycle where they spent around 4 days in the fornt line and then were cycled out through each of the other trenches (support trench, communication trench, reserve trench, behind the line) and then the process began again. During the big operations of course this would change and life in the front line could be incredibly dangerous, but the vast majority of soldiers from the First World War came home again without any injruies.

 

Now that's not to say the war was great fun or it was safe, it wasn't. And because the majority of time in the trenches was really pretty dull, when danger did appear it was often out of nowhere. For example Sergeant George Morgan – Pal’s Battalion in 1914 and survived the war.

 

I had just opened the tin of strawberries and was going to eat them when a shell came over. I was sitting in my hole with my legs sticking out and there was a man going down the trench to the doctor’s to have his eyes bathed (he had some trouble with his eyes) and this whizz-bang simply blew his head off – and a piece shrapnel hit me in the legs. As for that tin of strawberries I don’t know where it went to.

 

The image of the war we have now is dominated by the machinegun, which was an effective and highly dangerous defensive weapon, but it was the use of artillery that killed the vast majority of men both in the trenches and when they went over the top.

 

Actually going over the top was not a daily occurence. There were certainly rubbish generals on all sides of the fighting but most of them recognised that men could do things that other weapons couldn't. Men could kill other men. That's obvious. But one man with a machine gun can kill lots of men. A dozen men with an artillery piece could kill more. That wasn't the benefit of men. The thing about men was they could move. They could advance the line, capture ground and hold it. They could defend their own line.

 

There are certainly examples of men's lives being thrown away for f*** all (Chemin des Dames, or the American offensives right on the Armistice) but all sides knew that to run out of men was to lose the war so if they were going to send men into battle there was generally an objective in mind. Whether it was attainable or not is very different and often hard to say. We have to understand this was a very different era of warfare. Foch once told Lloyd George that 'it's war; men always die' and he was right. To test an idea or a strategy then you would have to stage an attack and it was almost inevitable that people would die.

 

But going over the top itself was alternately the most terrifying and exhilirating experience of many men's lives.

 

Here's an account from Lt .Kenneth Macardle of the assault on the village of Montauban on the first day of the Somme. You may not have ever read anything like this before, it's pretty amazing. Macardle was killed in action around the 9th July and his body was never recovered. He's been a terrific source for me and a lot of other historians (Malcolm Brown for example).

 

There are also assorted weird and wonderful tales from WW1 such as Henry Tandey (probably an urban myth but a great story) the Crucified Canadian (probably true actually) and the Angel of Mons (mental).

 

I think one of the important things to remember is that the First World War was no more or less terrible than any other war. War is hell in general. There was nothing intrinsically horrific about WW1 that I couldn't find replicates for in pretty much any other conflict, especially WW2. What WW1 is, however, is extremely misunderstood and deeply complicated.

 

The image of the European nations blithely marching to war in 1914 is deeply flawed. It was not a casual militarism that afflicted the continent at the turn of the last century, but fear. Some countries thought the war would be short, others did not. But most believed they were fighting for the survival of their own way of life. The stakes were raised higher than they had been at any point probably since Napoleon. The necessary situation for a conflict to become a ‘total war’ had already begun to emerge. When it became clear just what sort of war was unfolding and the peoples of Europe began to realize that to win this battle for survival they would have to resort to desperate measures.

 

What is also important to recognise is that the soldiers of the war certainly did not think of themselves as passive victims. There were certainly times when they railed against incompetence, perceived or real, despaired of the war ending, mutineed (in the case of the French), staged a revolution (in the case of the Russians) surrendered en masse (with the Germans) but for most of the war the body of soldiers for each side believed they were in it to win it and that they would achieve that.

 

It was only after the battles of 1916 that it began to become clear what role the later years of the war would take and for all the tragedies of the Somme and Verdun it was 1915 that was the worst year of the war for the allies. It's also important to remember that the allies won both the Verdun and Somme battles and effectively destroyed the strongest portions of the German army.

 

Only found out fairly recently that my Grandad's dad was a medical orderly in WWI (running around no-man's-land with a stretcher, as far as I can gather—stressederic to thread, please) and got gassed. Suffered the rest of his life with the effects and died during an operation which my Grandad advised him to go for in about 1946 or '47. D'oh.

 

You called?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to Irish soldiers serving in the British army I have to say I'm not an expert on this butcan talk a little about it.

 

The situation was fairly complicated by the split of the irish Volunteers into two competing sides; The Irish National Volunteers and the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Now the IRB were firmly against giving any form of assistance to Britain during the war and resolved extremely early on to take advantage of the war to strike at britain in some way shapeor form.

 

The INV under John Redwood wanted to ensure that Britain didn't have an excuse to back out of their agreement on home rule (which was already on upcoming legislation to pass through parliament) and thought that by serving in the army they'd be able to secure their country through effort expelled.

 

Also in a shameless attempt to make myself seem vaguely interesting and informed about something from my research into WW1 I also teach and lecture on it at the university so I can take a crack at any general WW1 related queries people have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You called?

Just wondering about the role of the medical orderly, really. Was it just nipping in and out of no-man's-land stretchering off the wounded and scoring the nurses? I remember doing a bit of Googling on it when I first heard about it but I don't think I learned much more than that. Can't decide whether that'd be an easier or a nastier job than manning the trenches, now that you've described that pretty much as a holiday camp...

 

The INV under John Redwood wanted to ensure that Britain didn't have an excuse to back out of their agreement on home rule (which was already on upcoming legislation to pass through parliament) and thought that by serving in the army they'd be able to secure their country through effort expelled.

Redmond? :unsure:

Edited by Coyler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering about the role of the medical orderly, really. Was it just nipping in and out of no-man's-land stretchering off the wounded and scoring the nurses? I remember doing a bit of Googling on it when I first heard about it but I don't think I learned much more than that. Can't decide whether that'd be an easier or a nastier job than manning the trenches, now that you've described that pretty much as a holiday camp...

 

Oh life in the trenches wasn't that fun. Even if you're only in there for 4 days and nobody is shooting at you, you're still stuck in a hole. And this is the army, they'll give you jobs to do. The dominant description of life in the trenches written by the soldiers is focused on how unbelievably boring it was.

 

Medical Orderlies, to my understanding, were slightly distinct from stretcher bearers who went into No Man's Land to recover bodies. That was extremely dangerous because those men had to essentially trust to providence that the enemy would, 1) see their red cross armbands or see their stretchers, 2) realise what they were doing, 3) care.

 

Medical orderlies generally operated in clearing stations dealing with casualties as they came in. Some of those would be pretty dangerous places though. They'd have to be somewhere accessible to the front line trenches, so we're not talking hundreds of miles behind the line here. There wouldn't be big teams dealing with overwhelming casualties during major actions so they'd often get overwhelmed. It must have been pretty stressful and unpleasant work.

 

It's not out of the question either that they'd need to go and recover wounded soldiers. If your commanding officer orders you to do it then you have to do it.

 

Did you say you're relative was gassed? Any idea when/where? Because some clearing stations were close to the line, if the area got gassed then so was the clearing station. I've also read enough accounts to suggest that both sides weren't above firing at suspected medical posts to wipe out the wounded.

 

Redmond? :unsure:

 

Him too....

 

 

Ahem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant, appreciate this info, stressederic. At the risk of enfuriating Earl Hafler, I'm not definite as to whereabouts he was gassed — the relative was my mam's dad's dad — but I'll try and ask my Grandad tactfully next time I'm in with him but I'm not sure how accurate his recollection will be. My dad has said a few times it was the Somme in 1916 but I suspect he's gloryhunting a bit there and likes the juxtaposition of his own father being a runner during the Easter Rising.

Edited by Coyler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're interested, there are several books on WW I on Project Gutenburg. One I read which was very interesting was a very matter of fact account called "Bullets and Billets" By Bruce Bairnsfather

 

You can download it here and you can also use that page to find other works on the same subject.

 

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11232

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant, appreciate this info, stressederic. At the risk of enfuriating Earl Hafler, I'm not definite as to whereabouts he was gassed — the relative was my mam's dad's dad — but I'll try and ask my Grandad tactfully next time I'm in with him but I'm not sure how accurate his recollection will be. My dad has said a few times it was the Somme in 1916 but I suspect he's gloryhunting a bit there and likes the juxtaposition of his own father being a runner during the Easter Rising.

 

No worries.

 

Even if you only find out a little bit of information on him; regiment, division, that type of stuff. We might be able to piece it together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting stuff.

 

My own Grandfather, who was a Catholic from West Belfast, was a Corporal in the Connaught Rangers. His name was Thomas James Connolly and is listed in the book which OM linked to. He was wounded and medically retired after fighting in Ypres. He was a fascinating character, a real all rounder. A Miner in Scotland, Poet, Bookie, Artist, Sculptor, etc etc. all self-taught. Some of his works were displayed in the Regimental mess and during a visit by George V he was summoned to meet His Majesty who was apparently very impressed with his work. (This account is from a whole page article about him in the Belfast Telegraph in the 1930's which I have a copy of.) Apparently the KIng thought that he should be offered a commission. My Grandfather declined. He most likely had more sense than to accept.

 

He was also very good friends with Stephen Gwynn - which was frowned upon by the brass. Gwynn was his Captain in the Connaught Rangers and fraternising with the lower ranks was not the done thing. Gwynn was MP for Galway and was in the Irish Parliamentary Party. Their friendship continued after the war and Gwynn did his best to encourage my Grandfather into poltics. He declined this too! We still have letters written by Gwynn and he would visit as often as he could.

 

Like others have said he didn't talk much about his experiences. I think that there has been a softening of attitudes towards the idea of recognition/commemoration for these men. Surely it's the least they deserve.

 

 

Might as well check in a few years time, eh ?

 

f*** me.

 

Well after looking at that list that bootser mentioned in the article I posted I reckon theres been a bit of myth building/lies told about my grandad...as theres a Corporal Frank Reilly listed in there too who was discharged no longer physically fit for service in 1919...my grandad was Frank Reilly (he only became O'Reilly at the priest's insistence at his wedding)....I suppose theres a chance it wasnt him, it depends on where he signed up as Im sure theres more than one Frank Reilly knocking about WWI...I think my aunt has some info on his time with the Rangers, Ill see if the service number is part of the info she has. As i said he never talked about it and his kids never asked and he was well tatie by the time any grandkids came along so its not as if we could ask him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well after looking at that list that bootser mentioned in the article I posted I reckon theres been a bit of myth building/lies told about my grandad...as theres a Corporal Frank Reilly listed in there too who was discharged no longer physically fit for service in 1919...my grandad was Frank Reilly (he only became O'Reilly at the priest's insistence at his wedding)....I suppose theres a chance it wasnt him, it depends on where he signed up as Im sure theres more than one Frank Reilly knocking about WWI...I think my aunt has some info on his time with the Rangers, Ill see if the service number is part of the info she has. As i said he never talked about it and his kids never asked and he was well tatie by the time any grandkids came along so its not as if we could ask him.

 

 

There's a chance ?!

 

If you can get any info i'll have a decent chance of researching him. Service number would be nice but not compulsory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WW1 history was something that was rather left (significantly) in the shadows in history lessons here in Ireland due to other goings on in Dublin at the time. It's something that I've only really started reading about in the last few years. I've really enjoyed Sebastian Barry's books realting to WW1.

 

Any forumites got any good stories on it, particulary with respect to their own forefathers/relatives?

 

Or better still, if Murph can give any first hand accounts to generate debate.

 

 

It was very boring most of the time, stuck in ditches amongst the deadlock, boredom was a big factor, keeping morale high something the top brass worked very hard at. One Christmas we played Gerry at football. On New year's Eve we had a Burns night in the trenches, it was a laugh. At Easter we had a dwarf throwing contest, I came second, my dwarf was just a bit too big to chuck, more a midget than a true dwarf..

 

Shame you're not a bit older, you'd have been perfect, I'd have won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was very boring most of the time, stuck in ditches amongst the deadlock, boredom was a big factor, keeping morale high something the top brass worked very hard at. One Christmas we played Gerry at football. On New year's Eve we had a Burns night in the trenches, it was a laugh. At Easter we had a dwarf throwing contest, I came second, my dwarf was just a bit too big to chuck, more a midget than a true dwarf..

 

Shame you're not a bit older, you'd have been perfect, I'd have won.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so where to start.

 

Maybe an assorted few stories from my research (some from books, some from the Imperial War Museum, some from others).

 

One of the things that I found interesting and a lot of people get drawn into, but also in a weird way find hard to fully grasp, was the actual nature of the combat during the war.

 

The notion that soldiers spent 24 hours a day 7 days a week in the front line constantly being shot at is a fallacy. Soldiers were generally on a sort of 4 week cycle where they spent around 4 days in the fornt line and then were cycled out through each of the other trenches (support trench, communication trench, reserve trench, behind the line) and then the process began again. During the big operations of course this would change and life in the front line could be incredibly dangerous, but the vast majority of soldiers from the First World War came home again without any injruies.

 

Now that's not to say the war was great fun or it was safe, it wasn't. And because the majority of time in the trenches was really pretty dull, when danger did appear it was often out of nowhere. For example Sergeant George Morgan – Pal’s Battalion in 1914 and survived the war.

 

 

 

The image of the war we have now is dominated by the machinegun, which was an effective and highly dangerous defensive weapon, but it was the use of artillery that killed the vast majority of men both in the trenches and when they went over the top.

 

Actually going over the top was not a daily occurence. There were certainly rubbish generals on all sides of the fighting but most of them recognised that men could do things that other weapons couldn't. Men could kill other men. That's obvious. But one man with a machine gun can kill lots of men. A dozen men with an artillery piece could kill more. That wasn't the benefit of men. The thing about men was they could move. They could advance the line, capture ground and hold it. They could defend their own line.

 

There are certainly examples of men's lives being thrown away for f*** all (Chemin des Dames, or the American offensives right on the Armistice) but all sides knew that to run out of men was to lose the war so if they were going to send men into battle there was generally an objective in mind. Whether it was attainable or not is very different and often hard to say. We have to understand this was a very different era of warfare. Foch once told Lloyd George that 'it's war; men always die' and he was right. To test an idea or a strategy then you would have to stage an attack and it was almost inevitable that people would die.

 

But going over the top itself was alternately the most terrifying and exhilirating experience of many men's lives.

 

Here's an account from Lt .Kenneth Macardle of the assault on the village of Montauban on the first day of the Somme. You may not have ever read anything like this before, it's pretty amazing. Macardle was killed in action around the 9th July and his body was never recovered. He's been a terrific source for me and a lot of other historians (Malcolm Brown for example).

 

There are also assorted weird and wonderful tales from WW1 such as Henry Tandey (probably an urban myth but a great story) the Crucified Canadian (probably true actually) and the Angel of Mons (mental).

 

I think one of the important things to remember is that the First World War was no more or less terrible than any other war. War is hell in general. There was nothing intrinsically horrific about WW1 that I couldn't find replicates for in pretty much any other conflict, especially WW2. What WW1 is, however, is extremely misunderstood and deeply complicated.

 

The image of the European nations blithely marching to war in 1914 is deeply flawed. It was not a casual militarism that afflicted the continent at the turn of the last century, but fear. Some countries thought the war would be short, others did not. But most believed they were fighting for the survival of their own way of life. The stakes were raised higher than they had been at any point probably since Napoleon. The necessary situation for a conflict to become a ‘total war’ had already begun to emerge. When it became clear just what sort of war was unfolding and the peoples of Europe began to realize that to win this battle for survival they would have to resort to desperate measures.

 

What is also important to recognise is that the soldiers of the war certainly did not think of themselves as passive victims. There were certainly times when they railed against incompetence, perceived or real, despaired of the war ending, mutineed (in the case of the French), staged a revolution (in the case of the Russians) surrendered en masse (with the Germans) but for most of the war the body of soldiers for each side believed they were in it to win it and that they would achieve that.

 

It was only after the battles of 1916 that it began to become clear what role the later years of the war would take and for all the tragedies of the Somme and Verdun it was 1915 that was the worst year of the war for

 

Many thanks SE. Fascinating stuff and it's obvious to me (if it wasn't already) that there are many and complex angles to the war. Looking forward to your book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so where to start.

 

Maybe an assorted few stories from my research (some from books, some from the Imperial War Museum, some from others).

 

One of the things that I found interesting and a lot of people get drawn into, but also in a weird way find hard to fully grasp, was the actual nature of the combat during the war.

 

The notion that soldiers spent 24 hours a day 7 days a week in the front line constantly being shot at is a fallacy. Soldiers were generally on a sort of 4 week cycle where they spent around 4 days in the fornt line and then were cycled out through each of the other trenches (support trench, communication trench, reserve trench, behind the line) and then the process began again. During the big operations of course this would change and life in the front line could be incredibly dangerous, but the vast majority of soldiers from the First World War came home again without any injruies.

 

Now that's not to say the war was great fun or it was safe, it wasn't. And because the majority of time in the trenches was really pretty dull, when danger did appear it was often out of nowhere. For example Sergeant George Morgan – Pal’s Battalion in 1914 and survived the war.

 

 

 

The image of the war we have now is dominated by the machinegun, which was an effective and highly dangerous defensive weapon, but it was the use of artillery that killed the vast majority of men both in the trenches and when they went over the top.

 

Actually going over the top was not a daily occurence. There were certainly rubbish generals on all sides of the fighting but most of them recognised that men could do things that other weapons couldn't. Men could kill other men. That's obvious. But one man with a machine gun can kill lots of men. A dozen men with an artillery piece could kill more. That wasn't the benefit of men. The thing about men was they could move. They could advance the line, capture ground and hold it. They could defend their own line.

 

There are certainly examples of men's lives being thrown away for f*** all (Chemin des Dames, or the American offensives right on the Armistice) but all sides knew that to run out of men was to lose the war so if they were going to send men into battle there was generally an objective in mind. Whether it was attainable or not is very different and often hard to say. We have to understand this was a very different era of warfare. Foch once told Lloyd George that 'it's war; men always die' and he was right. To test an idea or a strategy then you would have to stage an attack and it was almost inevitable that people would die.

 

But going over the top itself was alternately the most terrifying and exhilirating experience of many men's lives.

 

Here's an account from Lt .Kenneth Macardle of the assault on the village of Montauban on the first day of the Somme. You may not have ever read anything like this before, it's pretty amazing. Macardle was killed in action around the 9th July and his body was never recovered. He's been a terrific source for me and a lot of other historians (Malcolm Brown for example).

 

There are also assorted weird and wonderful tales from WW1 such as Henry Tandey (probably an urban myth but a great story) the Crucified Canadian (probably true actually) and the Angel of Mons (mental).

 

I think one of the important things to remember is that the First World War was no more or less terrible than any other war. War is hell in general. There was nothing intrinsically horrific about WW1 that I couldn't find replicates for in pretty much any other conflict, especially WW2. What WW1 is, however, is extremely misunderstood and deeply complicated.

 

The image of the European nations blithely marching to war in 1914 is deeply flawed. It was not a casual militarism that afflicted the continent at the turn of the last century, but fear. Some countries thought the war would be short, others did not. But most believed they were fighting for the survival of their own way of life. The stakes were raised higher than they had been at any point probably since Napoleon. The necessary situation for a conflict to become a ‘total war’ had already begun to emerge. When it became clear just what sort of war was unfolding and the peoples of Europe began to realize that to win this battle for survival they would have to resort to desperate measures.

 

What is also important to recognise is that the soldiers of the war certainly did not think of themselves as passive victims. There were certainly times when they railed against incompetence, perceived or real, despaired of the war ending, mutineed (in the case of the French), staged a revolution (in the case of the Russians) surrendered en masse (with the Germans) but for most of the war the body of soldiers for each side believed they were in it to win it and that they would achieve that.

 

It was only after the battles of 1916 that it began to become clear what role the later years of the war would take and for all the tragedies of the Somme and Verdun it was 1915 that was the worst year of the war for the allies. It's also important to remember that the allies won both the Verdun and Somme battles and effectively destroyed the strongest portions of the German army.

 

 

 

You called?

 

Great stuff stressederic. Years ago I read and really enjoyed Robert Graves' Goodbye To All That. I thought the book was

a very vivid and immediate memoir of the war. I know that Graves' fellow officers Siegfried Sassoon and Edmund Blunden took exception to the book but do you know what is the current scholarly consensus on the picture he presents of the conflict -is it deemed reliable or fanciful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great stuff stressederic. Years ago I read and really enjoyed Robert Graves' Goodbye To All That. I thought the book was

a very vivid and immediate memoir of the war. I know that Graves' fellow officers Siegfried Sassoon and Edmund Blunden took exception to the book but do you know what is the current scholarly consensus on the picture he presents of the conflict -is it deemed reliable or fanciful?

 

Graves' book is an interesting one because, by his own admission, he wrote it to 'make a lump of cash'. Graves had built up some fairly considerable debts over the preceding years and needed to clear them.

 

In the mid-late 1920s there were a raft of war books appearing on the market, and many of them took a very particular 'anti-war' slant, principally because publishers had begun to notice a trend in the market where war memoirs which portrayed the war as horrific and muddy, bloody etc sold in huge numbers.

 

This is a quote from the thesis of Esther Maccallum-Stewart who is a good friend of mine. She wrote on the First World War and Popular Literature:

 

The first serious challenge to the carefully contained construction of the war came in 1928, with the publication of Erich Maria Remarque's All Quiet on The Western Front. When reviewing Henri Barbusse's Le reu for The Times Literary Supplement, John Middleton Murry had said of it, 'If an Englishman hated war as M. Barbusse hates it, he would not only not write about it, he would almost certainly not take part in it' (Murry, 1917: 164), and true to this, a German writer provided the catalyst for British publication. In the following years a slew of books, poetry and plays reconceptualised the war experience, including Siegfried Sassoon's, Memoirs of A Foxhunting Man (1928); Edmund Blunden's, Undertones of War (1928); Robert Graves's, Good-bye to All That (1929); R. C. Sherriff's play Journey's End; a new edition of Wilfred Owen's poetry, also edited by Edmund Blunden (1930); Guy Chapman's, A Passionate Prodigality (1933) and Vera Brittain's Testament of Youth (1933). The sales of these books could hardly go unnoticed: as well as Aldington's prediction, Peter Davies locked one of his authors in his room, demanding that he produce his proposed war memoir immediately (The result was The Middle Parts of Fortune by Frederic Manning in 1929). Sensational, dark novels and autobiographies about the war were suddenly littering fashionable bookshelves.

 

That said, not all of the writers being labelled 'anti-war' were really that at all. Graves himself was pretty surprised/annoyed to be called such.

 

I was surprised at being acclaimed in headlines of daily papers as the author of a violent treatise against war. For I had tried not to show a bias for or against war as a human institution, but merely to describe what happened to me during a particular and not at all typical one in which I took part. Much of this experience was painful, even shameful, but by no means all. I did record that half-way through the war I began to have doubts as to whether its continuance was justified or not. But that was only after two years of attrition...

 

Graves also heavily edited his own book in 1957 to swap some of the areas around, remove the dedication etc.

 

Graves never meant it to be read as historical fact. It's a mix of fiction, with some historical basis, but it isn't his actual war experience.

 

As a book recommendation I would strongly urge people to go out and buy Dan Todman's 'The Great War - Myth and Modern Memory'/ It's a terrific book that really helps to unpick the differences between the image and the (some of) the reality but also explains how these myths start to rise up and what purpose they serve.

 

The current view of the First World War is heavily influenced by the view of the Second World War as a 'just war' and the production of material during the 1960s which used the First World War as a metaphor for the Cold War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...